HB 505 - Elk Need Your Help

[antlerradar]

I think you are correct on those points. Having 100 head of elk is like running 100 head of yearling steers.....only harder on the fences.....and you can keep said yearling steers out of your alfalfa and hay barley during the summer. Not to mention, when you have elk......the orange coats show up in the fall and want to give you a smoked Turkey and a bottle of Black Velvet to gain access to them....which usually doesn’t work.

The smoked turkey and black velvet crowd is a breath of fresh air compared to the ones that tell you how they will be doing a favor getting rid of one of those elk one minute and a few minutes later talk about how it sucks to buy any beef because they didn't kill an elk.

 

[MTTW]

I haven't asked permission to hunt in 35 years because I always thought that the landowners must think exactly what it turns out that landowners think. Not saying there is anything wrong with it, I would think the same way. It is why I feel strongly about protecting public land.

 

[Eric Albus]

Walk, there is slightly more tolerance when landowners are cashing a lease check. When numbers get too high their tolerance is gone, and we’ve opened up to the public to help control numbers, and not just for does...to save a few of you a rant.
Feeding the public’s wildlife is expensive, my biologist buddy has a formula for extrapolation of AUM’s cattle vs. elk. I’ve never bothered to figure out what whitetail compare forage wise to cows, but would guess it’s 4-5 deer to one cow. I’ve had landowners to be able to take 2nd cutting alfalfa because of the deer.

 

[Walkalot]

Eric albus, so how does a lease check compare to block management check. I really dont know. On the management question where i was going with it is this. Iam guessing you dont shoot every buck and try to kill older mature animals. Which i believe is smart and you prob have it down. Why not do that in LE elk units and stop the spike hunting and based off science give out more bull tags.

 

[Gerald Martin]

So.... are elk and deer liabilities or assets?

Seems to me they are both. The same landowners who complain about the costs, are generally the same ones who want to benefit from the asset when it comes time to manage numbers.

Also, how many ads for ranches for sell do you see elk and deer being advertised as a liability and the price being lowered to reflect that? Zero.

It’s time for the conversation to start shifting.

 

[Straight Arrow]

So.... are elk and deer liabilities or assets?

Seems to me they are both. The same landowners who complain about the costs, are generally the same ones who want to benefit from the asset when it comes time to manage numbers.

Also, how many ads for ranches for sell do you see elk and deer being advertised as a liability and the price being lowered to reflect that? Zero.

It’s time for the conversation to start shifting.

In the fall they are gold. In the spring they are vermin.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Rancher Bob has a growing number of elk that use his property. In order to offset the costs associated with that, he leases to outfitter Joe or Hunt Club XYZ, or John Brown.

All of the people who lease access to those elk want to see lots of elk when they hunt so they restrict harvest and are careful not to pressure elk off the areas they hunt.

Elk numbers continue to grow and Rancher Bob keeps complaining about too many elk.

FWP issues enough tags to kill every elk on public land and accessible private lands in order to reduce elk to the “objective”. “Objective” being that magical number arrived at by determining social acceptance, not biological carrying capacity.

Elk herds keep growing on Rancher Bob’s and surrounding sanctuary properties. Elk herds are decimated on accessible areas.

This is the schizophrenic elk management reality that allows HB-505 to be introduced as a “solution” to a “problem” defined by people who want all of the benefits of wildlife and none of the liability.

It’s time to change the conversation.

Wildlife exists as a condition of the land. It is a public trust natural resource just like air and water.

If a rancher irrigates his crops with water from a river and then asks for compensation because that same river made one of his fields too wet to plant in the spring, we would laugh him to scorn.

When I made that argument to Director Worsech, his reply was that ranchers carry crop insurance to mitigate the costs associated with the river. My reply to that is,ranchers should carry crop insurance to mitigate wildlife costs if they want to benefit from wildlife as an asset. He actually agreed with me on that point.

 

[Eric Albus]

Gerald,

1. Rancher Bob should not complain about elk numbers if he is part of the problem. (i have had this conversation w/ every landowner who has come to me about leasing)

2. IF (big if...lol) there is going to be a solution reached the commission is going to have to have the ability to work with landowners, as I have repeatedly said, THEY hold the keys to the solution.

505 is not going to manage us out of an elk problem. If you want to control numbers, close the bull/buck season down and have antlerless only. I believe I suggested that in my "were I the King" rant.

Make Nov. 10-28 antlerless only, elk and deer, license good only on private land. This will get numbers back in check.

I know some of you want numbers matched to carry capacity. In the Bob Marshal I have no problem with this. Where there is private land and crop damage numbers should be managed to landowner tolerance.

 

[antlerradar]

Some of the reasons elk are less tolerated.

Like you said, Elk are bigger and eat allot more.
Elk are much harder on fencing.
Elk tend to be in big concentrated herds while deer are more spread out.
Elk are a relatively new experience for many landowners in MT
There are probably more that I am not thinking about.

A few others

Elk are grazers, deer are browsers. Sure they both love alfalfa but out in the pasture deer are not competing with cattle nearly as much as elk.
Elk are mobile. You could have elk in the field all night, but when the sun is in the sky they are miles away on a safe property.
You can have 150 elk in your field all September, come rifle season you will be lucky to harvest a half dozen and they are gone. I have also seen it were you line up a bunch of hunters for the opener and the elk leave before the season starts. Sure it is maybe nice to have them gone but by then the damage is done and you have done very little to keep numbers in check.
As for the money, I would guess that there is more money in elk than deer. Where I live elk tags are difficult to get, but I can think of several ranches that are making better money leased to resident hunters looking to use there 900-20 tag than they made leasing to deer outfitters. Increase the number of tags and those lease rates are sure to go up.

 

[TheTone]

It’s probably a lot nicer to outfit for whitetail archery hunters that you just drop off at a treestand vs elk hunters that you actively have to assist I would assume

 

[Walkalot]

Man ranchers have it tuff. Get a bunch of government and state aid to ensure the ranch dosent fail. Tax money. Then figuring out how u can take more while getting crop insurance, leasing for hunting, all the while not allowing public hunting so u can use elk as a tool to get more. FWP has bent over for ranchers, montana has the most liberal elk hunting out of any state. BIG SCAM.

 

[Gerald Martin]

He

Gerald,

1. Rancher Bob should not complain about elk numbers if he is part of the problem. (i have had this conversation w/ every landowner who has come to me about leasing)

2. IF (big if...lol) there is going to be a solution reached the commission is going to have to have the ability to work with landowners, as I have repeatedly said, THEY hold the keys to the solution.

505 is not going to manage us out of an elk problem. If you want to control numbers, close the bull/buck season down and have antlerless only. I believe I suggested that in my "were I the King" rant.

Make Nov. 10-28 antlerless only, elk and deer, license good only on private land. This will get numbers back in check.

I know some of you want numbers matched to carry capacity. In the Bob Marshal I have no problem with this. Where there is private land and crop damage numbers should be managed to landowner tolerance.

Eric, some of what you say, I am in 100% agreement with.

I want objective determined by carrying capacity. Landowners want objective determined by crop damage and landowner tolerance.

A solution is probably going to look like something in between. I am willing to work with that.

What I am not willing to do anymore is to let the people who are creating this problem define the problems and solutions any more.

Look at the testimony before the FWP committee last week. Six proponents for 505. Everyone of them a paid lobbyist. Zero ranchers showing up to represent themselves and saying 505 is a good solution. Twenty-nine opponents testified in person almost all of them taking off work to represent their personal interests that 505 would harm.

The proponents of 505 and similar legislation do not have the working ranchers interests in mind, regardless of how they try to frame their image.

This isn’t ranchers vs. hunters. This is the rich and politically connected trying to get what they want and disregarding how their actions affect everyone else.

 

[sacountry]

He

Eric, some of what you say, I am in 100% agreement with.

I want objective determined by carrying capacity. Landowners want objective determined by crop damage and landowner tolerance.

A solution is probably going to look like something in between. I am willing to work with that.

What I am not willing to do anymore is to let the people who are creating this problem define the problems and solutions any more.

Look at the testimony before the FWP committee last week. Six proponents for 505. Everyone of them a paid lobbyist. Zero ranchers showing up to represent themselves and saying 505 is a good solution. Twenty-nine opponents testified in person almost all of them taking off work to represent their personal interests that 505 would harm.

The proponents of 505 and similar legislation do not have the working ranchers interests in mind, regardless of how they try to frame their image.

This isn’t ranchers vs. hunters. This is the rich and politically connected trying to get what they want and disregarding how their actions affect everyone else.

Preaching on a Sunday....well presented Gerald.

I do think @Eric Albus gets it. The landowners are the keys to the solution. You have to add one more element to that equation though. They are also the problem, in the form of access. I'm not sure that limiting bull harvesting to the first two weeks of rifle season solves that problem. I think there has to be an incentive for the problem side of the landowner equation. I do feel like a retooled Block Management program with mandatory harvest reporting which could be tied to increased compensation might do the trick. It could even be quota based....so a BMA shuts down after X elk have been harvested. This potentially lessens public traffic on private land. Easier to get check from FWP based upon harvest numbers than a crop insurance claim (I'm guessing).

 

[Ben Lamb]

Preaching on a Sunday....well presented Gerald.

I do think @Eric Albus gets it. The landowners are the keys to the solution. You have to add one more element to that equation though. They are also the problem, in the form of access. I'm not sure that limiting bull harvesting to the first two weeks of rifle season solves that problem. I think there has to be an incentive for the problem side of the landowner equation. I do feel like a retooled Block Management program with mandatory harvest reporting which could be tied to increased compensation might do the trick. It could even be quota based....so a BMA shuts down after X elk have been harvested. This potentially lessens public traffic on private land. Easier to get check from FWP based upon harvest numbers than a crop insurance claim (I'm guessing).

The political outrage from the Legislature & others would be immense if MT went to antlerless only, as called for in the EMP. That's the main reason why it's never been used. We are told repeatedly that FWP is punitive in how they manage (I don't believe that to be the case, but let's use it for convenience's sake).

If FWP went to antlerless, the bills that would come forward to strip FWP of any ability to manage game would be fast & furious. The move to privatize would gain steam in the political class. Part of the problem is that MT's interim legislative system is worthless and partisan beyond all belief, and so educating legislators is a 1 on 1 game. When we talked with Legislators about shoulder seasons, the overwhelming response was "We love them!" No idea about the controversy within because resident hunters were bitching to FWP, and not their legislator. Shoulder seasons are the doing the of the Legislature.

So all of these ideas are great, but without a massive education effort to inform legislators what is happening, we end up with the lobbyist crowd setting the table for us. That's only special interests writing the laws that FWP has to govern by.

Revamping Block Management, dealing ethically & conservatively with game damage, finding better tools for landowners to use to increase harvest to reduce problematic populations, etc are all vital to better elk management, but without the Legislature acting in an educatd & informed manner, we get crap like 143 or 505.

If the Legislature really wanted to be value added to this discussion - table 505 & introduce a committee study bill to work in conjunction with the EMP rewrite, so that in 2023, we can have some legislation that everybody thinks is awful, rather than just 1 side of the equation.

 

[Eric Albus]

sa, you are correct, the landowners are the problem, the problem with this is they are also the solution. I hope with the new director, and commission we can start to look at ways give incentives to landowners.


Ben, maybe I am a little naïve, but I don't see where the Dept. going to antlerless only for 2-3 weeks of general season is going bring "forward bills to strip FWP of ability to manage".
IMO it can't get a whole lot worse.

As to SB143 it reduced pressure on accessible lands by keeping the 8-8500 hunters traditionally(roughly the last 20 yrs) booking with outfitters either in the backcountry or on private land. What I am hearing from many of my peers is they don't have enough pref. pts. to take their repeat clients, this will directly result in more DIY guys competing with Resident hunters on accessible lands.

When the smoke clears from this and I am proven correct I hope each and every resident hunter whose opportunity is adversely affected takes the time to write those in opposition a thank you note.

 

[Eric Albus]

So.... are elk and deer liabilities or assets?

Seems to me they are both. The same landowners who complain about the costs, are generally the same ones who want to benefit from the asset when it comes time to manage numbers.

Also, how many ads for ranches for sell do you see elk and deer being advertised as a liability and the price being lowered to reflect that? Zero.

It’s time for the conversation to start shifting.

The guys buying these ranches you mention are generally not traditional Montana ranch families. These are wealthy absentee landowners who see elk as an aesthetic and an asset. They don't have to make their living off the ranches production.

 

[Eric Albus]

Eric albus, so how does a lease check compare to block management check. I really dont know. On the management question where i was going with it is this. Iam guessing you dont shoot every buck and try to kill older mature animals. Which i believe is smart and you prob have it down. Why not do that in LE elk units and stop the spike hunting and based off science give out more bull tags.

In many cases landowners would make more off of BM or PAL than a lease payment. The reason they take less from a group of hunters(R&NR) or an outfitter is they don't want to be over run with people, and they don't want the wildlife slaughtered.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The guys buying these ranches you mention are generally not traditional Montana ranch families. These are wealthy absentee landowners who see elk as an aesthetic and an asset. They don't have to make their living off the ranches production.

Eric, this is exactly my point. They want the elk and how the elk affect their neighbors isn’t a concern for them.

They aren’t going to be incentivized to open access to those elk with 505.

The working landowners who are affected by the elk have neighbor problems more so than elk problems.

The solutions offered by FWP to liberalize cow harvest by issuing more cow tags and allowing shoulder seasons only fixes the problems on paper. FWP can point to increased harvest but it’s not the problem elk that are getting killed. It’s the elk on accessible lands that don’t really need to be reduced because their numbers can be kept in check by hunter harvest during the general season.

I am sympathetic to the working rancher. But I am done trying to fix problems of other people’s making with solutions that harm my interests.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Why do we have to accept that we need to incentivize to open access to kill elk?

Landowners are the ones who are in the driver’s seat when it comes to setting elk objective numbers. Why do we as shareholders in the public trust resource that is elk, have to accept an arbitrary number that limits elk numbers? Especially, when there is a significant amount of public lands that private landowners utilize to graze private livestock in direct competition to elk?

In what world should I find an elk objective of 200-300 on 1.7 million acres composed of 42% of public land, acceptable?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, maybe I am a little naïve, but I don't see where the Dept. going to antlerless only for 2-3 weeks of general season is going bring "forward bills to strip FWP of ability to manage".
IMO it can't get a whole lot worse.

When FWP entertained a petition to bring up non-lead ammo as a recommendation for big game hunting, the Legislature made it illegal for FWP to decide what kind of ammo was allowable for all game hunting, except for weapons restriction areas.

When FWP had the temerity to exercise caution and to look at a buffer zone for wolf harvest around YNP, the Legislature took that ability away from the Commission.

When FWP purchased the Milk River Ranch, Marias WMA, etc, the legislature tried to stop the ability of the FWP to be able to purchase land.

This session, with no bison proposal even in sight that would pass the smell test, the Legislature is taking the ability to manage bison away from FWP.

For 10 years after FWP went to bundled permits in the Breaks, there were bills to eliminate the ability to manage wildlife. Hell, there was even a bill this year to eliminate all permits if an area was above objective.

Given the past history of the Legislature as it relates to wildlife management, I'd say it's a fairly good bet that if antlerless would have gone forward, there would have been bills (most likely from legislators around where you live) to eliminate the ability of the FWP to decide that issue as well.